The Global Warming Challenge!

Global warming, sadly, has transformed from a scientific issue, which it should be, into an ideological battleground, which it should NOT be.

Understanding global warming is critically important because the United Nations and world governments are asking taxpaying patrons to spend untold trillions of their hard earned dollars to solve a global warming threat that could profoundly alter life as we know it on this planet.

This is serious stuff. That is why everyone needs to understand it.

Two Questions

Is man-caused global warming real?

If so, can mankind reverse it’s man-caused effects?

Those are heady, fundamental and very, very expensive questions that we all need to fully understand. Every human on Earth is affected physically and financially.

Those, perhaps, are the two most important questions of the new millennium.

The Challenge

Therefore, I challenge anyone and everyone who sees this to help answer those two basic questions.

As a minimum starting point, I’ve provided a graphic at the beginning of this article. You need to understand that graphic BEFORE you are knowledgeable enough to discuss global warming.

I’m NOT going to spell it out for you!

Its YOUR job to understand it. I’m not even going to tell you where it originally came from.

However, if you don’t understand it and want to learn more about global warming then I will gladly answer your questions to assist in all of our greater understand of the threat of global warming.

As a learner, the most important discovery I’ve made is that if I have questions about something I don’t understand then others have those same questions, too.

No one wants to join. You have scared them off.
I will make these points:
1) Consensus does not mean scientific fact; consensus at one point in time had the Earth flat and at the center of the universe.
2) You cannot really prove a theory with computer simulations no matter how complex. Science requires proof by experiment. We cannot do that here. That said, the evidence collected overwhelmingly shows one with a reasoned mind that the Earth has warmed over the 1900-2000 span.
3) But why? Great question, but also the wrong question. Better question: those dots measuring CO2 are moving upwards, what does that mean? In chmistry something is going to happen, and how is mankind going to adapt? The CO2 is going up because of the burning of fossil fuels is the most likely reason. The extra CO2 will do something. It does not matter if it is warming or cooling. The prudent thing is for man to attenuate his activity and forcing of that CO2 line, because whatever it is that is going to occur with more CO2 will occur. How to do this is the real debate.

2-You are correct… computer simulations are only as good as the assumptions behind them. Fortunately, for this discussion, we will not need to depend on computer simulations.

You are further correct that over the last 100 years the earths temperature has increased. The empirical evidence is conclusive on that point. The HadCRUT temperature anomaly data from 1850-Present that proves it is shown here:http://www.pbase.com/image/141819612

3-I’m unsure if it is conclusively proven that the rise in CO2 shown in the opening graphic is caused by burning of fossil fuels… but for purposes of discussion lets assume that it is.

Given this information… how does that relate to this question:
Is man-caused global warming real?

From history, man has left a big footprint on everything, so it seems leaving a big footprint on the atmosphere has a good chance too. So, I will say a qualified yes, to either warming or cooling, so we should take a prudent, but not reckless approach.

But now you have me wondering about one of my presumptions on CO2. You seem to know more here. Is the concentration we see now the highest ever? I thought it was, and hence my man driven view. What other things add to CO2 in the air? In this area I am beyond my scope of information.

Philosophically and spiritually I want to leave as small a footprint as possilbe, but I know I have failed. I drive to work alone, even after I tried to get folks to join a carpol with me.

At around 395 ppmv (v for volume), current atmospheric CO2 concentration is high and rising. That is clearly seen in the opening graphic. Over the last 420,000 years or so the average has been about 280 ppmv as determined through various methods by paleoclimatologists.

Over geologic timescales CO2 concentrations have been much higher, upwards of 6,000ppmv. 395ppmv is not remotely close to the highest its ever been. It is the highest in the last 400,00 years or so:http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf

Its a fair assumption that man’s CO2 emissions are the cause of the increase and will be assumed for this discussion.

You are correct about man’s large environmental footprint…
I have occasion to travel to the most physically remote places in the continental United States. From those travels I can tell you this… overpopulation pressures are screwing up the environment everywhere!

I am in trouble here. From your answer I know you have substantial scientific data at your disposal, and you have an answer to the question even. Militarily, you have the high ground with the heavy armor, and history shows that to be the winning position almost all of the time, except for Eisenhower’s gambit at Normandy. Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars lost to the Jedi Knight on the high spot too.

So, I take Anakin’s position and at best have a small pistol. Should I lose, I am the dark side.

I will say NO. We are just in the middle of major swings associated with Ice Ages. Wiki on ice ages shows CO2 rising, temps rising, and then wham, the snow flies big time and temps drop. So in a reversal, the high CO2 is not causing the high temps, but the high temps are causing the CO2 rise.

But man does release CO2, and here I now pull out my light saber (remember I am Anakin, and you should not have thought I only had a small pistol). Man’s CO2 cannot be a good thing from a simple cause and effect chemistry viewpoint. I put forth a version of game theory, the prisoners dilemma. If man believes warming is true, and it is true, and he takes action, mankind is saved. If man takes action, and he is not responsible because it is not happening, then all man did was spend some money and we have some extra wind turbines flopping in the breeze. If truth is warming is not real and man takes no action, he spends zero. But now the killer app. If man takes no action, and indeed he is causing warming (cooling or some kind of disaster), then mankind is toast, cooked, gone, an infinite negative. In this game: Man must TAKE ACTION to reduce CO2 emissions.

So, I put forth: #1 NO; #2 Not Completely; But, man must still reduce his footprint.

Okay, I have dug the fox hole, and now await the howitzers, stealth fighters, and whatever else the your military has these days that I do not know of.

Under natural conditions, higher temperatures cause some release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Thus, global warming CAN cause atmospheric CO2 to rise, but that it still remains within certain natural limits, according to the daycreek paper.

That is the basis for your answering “no”. But that isn’t the whole story.

The daycreek paper also says that current CO2 increases don’t appear normal… they are above normal… implying that man’s CO2 emissions are causing current atmospheric CO2 to be even higher than would naturally occur during interglacial warming. Thus man could be altering natural equilibrium.

That begs the question…
Will the increase in CO2 caused by man trigger an irreversible runaway greenhouse effect UNLESS man takes steps to reverse his CO2 emissions?

The IPCC basically says “yes”.

However, there is a more compelling reason for answering “no”. Do you know what it is?

It is found in the opening graphic and in the full HadCRUT3 dataset shown in the 2nd graphic as well.

Feel it, Anikin. Feel The Force. Let it flow through you. The Force is strong within objective truth. Anakin… do not succumbed to the Dark Side!!

The Force took me to the Vostok ice core data and a recent analysis published in a scientific journal showing that the last 17 years of HadCRUT does not show statistical warming despite increases in CO2, even if man made. Orbital precession, solar irradiation, and other factors are at play.

When I was in college, you could disprove a theory by showing a major counterexample. The recent published paper puts down a marker for the IPCC. I still think man should not trample over God’s Earth.

The empirical HadCRUT3 data clearly shows a disconnect between a linear rise in atmospheric CO2 and temperature. Since about the turn of the millennium global temperature has leveled off while atmospheric CO2 steadily continues linearly upward.

That is clearly at odds with the IPCC’s conclusions.

Why is CO2 rising, but earth’s temperature is not rising? What is going to happen now?

The IPCC must answer those questions for their theory and recommendations to be taken seriously.

The IPCC has made recommendations likely costing trillions upon trillions of dollars to implement. That total cost must be accurately determined and justified.

I passed. Whew. Great Challenge.
I have sent this link to others among friends and family.
It is amazing you do not read of these things in the main stream media.
You made me think and do research, that was fun.

the earth atmosphere isnt a linear system though right? previous warming has been in fits and starts and if i understand it rightly the warming trend has resumed again. Other possible source of warming have been quantified and they cannot account for the recent upwards trend.

You are correct… the atmosphere is not a linear system in the sense it gets thinner with altitude.

Throughout geologic time there have been great changes in the atmosphere… fluctuations in temperature of 20 degrees Celsius or more have occurred. Ice ages have come and gone and we are now currently in an interglacial period and near one of the warmest times of the current interglacial period.

Earth was near that peak warmth long before global warming was thought of.

Ok i expressed that badly, what i meant to say was the response of the earths climate to external forcings is nonlinear. anyway the graph at the link below gives the lie to the notion that a temporary plateau in warming somehow contradicts the theory of man made climate change.

do you really think people are unaware of the variability of climate over time?? 1) these variations didnt just happen they were the product of changing forcings to the system, such as oh i dunno for instance changing atmospheric composition 2) the catastrophic nature of these changes would for me tend to suggest an extreme precaution principal as regards tinkering with the climate(even in the absence of a solid scientific consensus)

Thanks…
That is a really, REALLY cool graphic! I like it allot and it makes your point well!

The basic reasoning we may head for another ice age is simple:
The Earth is warming. We know that. By direct measurement its temperature has risen about 1 degree C in the last 120 years. We also know it is near the interglacial high temperature.

As earth heats up two major things happen:
1-Glaciers and ice caps melt
2-Changing weather patterns bring more precipitation further toward the poles

These two effects combine to dump large amounts of fresh water into the far northern and far southern oceans.

That deceases their salinity until a critical desalination point is reached that stops thermohaline circulation dead in its tracks! Cooled ocean water can no longer sink!

Thermohaline circulation (ocean currents) is responsible for 70% of all heat transport on Earth. The other 30% is through the atmosphere.

Thermohaline shutdown is what will trigger the next ice age.

Paleoclimatology supports this conclusion.

Research on Antarctic ice cores revel that ice ages come on very suddenly… within a decades time. The old belief it takes thousands of years has been totally shot down.